Zataria multiflora affects pulmonary function tests, respiratory symptoms, bronchodilator drugs use and hematological parameters in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A randomized doubled-blind clinical trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Zataria multiflora is employed as an antitussive, anti-spasmodic, analgesic and etc. Agent in traditional medicine. The modern medical studies are also confirmed effects of this plant for treatment of respiratory problems via anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and immunomodulatory properties.

AIM OF STUDY

We evaluated efficacy of Z. multiflora on tests of pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, inhaled bronchodilator drugs use, and hematological factors in COPD patients.

METHODS

Patients (n = 45) were randomly grouped in the following three groups: placebo group (P), groups received Z. multiflora extract 3 and 6 mg/kg/day (Z3 and Z6). FEV1 and MEF25-75, respiratory symptoms, inhaled bronchodilator drugs use and hematological factors were evaluated before and 1-2 months after treatment.

RESULTS

Z. multiflora led to significant enhancement of FEV1 (p < 0.05 to p < 0.01). Respiratory symptoms were also considerably ameliorated following treatment with extracts for 1 and 2 months compared to baseline values (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). In groups received extract, inhaled bronchodilator drugs use was remarkably declined at the end of study (both, p < 0.05). Reduction of total WBC was observed 1-2 months after treatment in treated groups with extract compared to baseline values (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). Neutrophils were remarkably declined in Z3 and Z6 groups after 2-monthes compared to 1-month treatment (p < 0.05 to p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The evidence show therapeutic effect of this herb on COPD patients which could be result from properties that help to decrease inflammation.

Zataria multiflora extract influenced asthmatic patients by improving respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function tests and lung inflammation

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant effects of Zataria multiflora Boiss (Z. multiflora) were reported in previous studies which is using in traditional and modern medicine. This plant is traditional used as an anti-tussive agent and for the management of respiratory disorders.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The preventive effect of the extract of leaves and stems of Z. multiflora on respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function tests, hematological indices, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), level of interleukin-10 (IL-10) in the serum and supernatant of cultured peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and gene expression of IL-10 in these cells in asthmatic patients was studied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

36 asthmatic patients in three groups (randomly divided) of placebo group (P), two groups treated with 5 and 10 mg/kg/day doses of Z. multiflora (Z5 and Z10) for two months completed the study. Drugs were administered double-blindly and different variables were assessed before and after (one and two months) starting treatment including respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function tests (PFT), hematological indices, hs-CRP, serum and supernatant levels as well as gene expression of IL-10.

RESULTS

Two months treatment with Z5 and Z10 led to significant reduction of respiratory symptoms (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). Pulmonary function test values in treated groups were also significantly increased two months after starting treatment (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). Total WBC, monocytes and eosinophils were also decreased in treated groups with the extract at the end of study period (p < 0.05 to p < 0.01). Hemoglobin and hematocrit in Z10 treated group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) in both treated groups (p < 0.05 to p < 0.01) were significantly reduced. In addition, the level of hs-CRP in both treated groups was significantly reduced after two months (p < 0.05 to p < 0.01). IL-10 concentration in Z10 treated group in supernatant of PBMC was also significantly enhanced (p < 0.01). All comparisons were made compared to the baseline (beginning of the treatment) values.

CONCLUSION

Z. multiflora improved respiratory symptoms and increased pulmonary function tests in asthmatic patients. In addition, the plant was effective in decrement of inflammatory cells and hs-CRP as well as enhanced IL-10. Therefore, the plant showed possible preventive therapeutic effect on asthma.

The effect of Zataria multiflora on respiratory allergic and immunologic disorders, experimental and clinical evidence: A comprehensive review

Zataria multiflora (Z. multiflora) is used in traditional and modern medicine for therapeutic objectives especially in respiratory disorders. Therefore, updated experimental and clinical studies on the effects of Z. multiflora on respiratory, allergic, and immunologic disorders are reviewed. Various electronic search engines including PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using appropriate keywords until the end of November 2021. Books, thesis-hard copies of some articles were also included. The effects of Z. multiflora on respiratory disorders including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung infection, and lung cancer were shown. Extracts of Z. multiflora showed the relaxant effect with various mechanisms. The preventive effects of Z. multiflora were also demonstrated by mechanisms such as antioxidant, immunomodulatory, and antiinflammatory properties in the experimental animal models of different respiratory diseases. Carvacrol and thymol are probably responsible for the therapeutic effect of plant among 56 constituents of Z. multiflora. In addition, bronchodilatory and preventive effects of the plant and its constituents on asthma, COPD, lung disorders due to noxious agents and allergic and immunologic disorders were shown in the clinical studies. Therefore Z. multiflora and its constituents may be considered as a preventive and/or relieving therapy in various respiratory diseases.

Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries.  Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness  10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62  95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17).  Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.